Wires down at Luton (8/11/16)

[fusionblue]

It's hardly fair comment. The routes have never been tested on infrastructure that was designed for them. They've been forced to either cross the main line to get to and from London Bridge high level; then conflict with Charing Cross and Cannon Street services; then the single track section at the base of the spur towards Blackfriars. To say nothing of Windmill Junction.

At the moment they are forced to crawl along the slowest way from East Croydon to Blackfriars which is one long bottleneck.

Don't forget that with the combined efforts of the resignalling, the automatic operation, the separation of the tracks from the core all the way to Windmill Junction, and the capacity creating trains, the post 2018 picture is entirely different.

There is still flat crossings on Cambria Junction, just north of Loughborough Junction, Nunhead Junction, the diamond outside Lewisham, Courthill/Ladywell Junction (from Ladywell to London and Lewisham to Hither Green) and of course the crossings that Thameslink propose to use to get from London Bridge towards Deptford plus North Kent (i think?) junction itself.

And that's just SET land up to Lewisham.

NR had an opportunity to untangle literally everything on the way up to London Bridge and Blackfriars but instead narrowed that focus down to from Brighton up to London Bridge instead. What we'll have in 2018 is the major bottleneck (or the label of it) simply moving further out to a new location.

 

[Class377/5]

Fair point - forgot the services swap over in 2018 terms. So what about the fact that Earlswood, Salfords and Horley will have no service at all then! Plus 50% reduction on overcrowded Redhill services (which will still be very overcrowded with 2018 timetable and 12 coach trains)

Stop the Horsham, although I did suggest doing the Finsbury Park to Three Bridges that means no reduction in services at all.

However in massive disruption like this week, some extra stops would be in place. As for Redhill seeing a 50% reduction, well that's just Thameslink not all services through there. Add in the fact you'll have longer trains meaning an increase in capacity and it's all round better than today's situation which is my entire point here.

 

[Verulamius]

Thameslink trains are running through but no terminators at Luton at the moment.

Does anyone know what has actually been done to solve the problem, is it plugging in a new controlling module? (Texting from complete ignorance)

 

[westcoaster]

Thameslink trains are running through but no terminators at Luton at the moment.

Does anyone know what has actually been done to solve the problem, is it plugging in a new controlling module? (Texting from complete ignorance)

From what I heard there was core cable damage, a loc box completely fried, tdm fried, modem fried. NR had to get a lot of kit in, and a full line closure for complete testing.

 

[Flying_Turtle]

and luckilly plenty of spares from similar technology from recent signal replacement schemes which brought in lots of spares from other places

 

[jon0844]

and luckilly plenty of spares from similar technology from recent signal replacement schemes which brought in lots of spares from other places

Just as well as I wouldn't want to be the one sent down to the local Currys PC World to get parts. Before you know it, Network Rail would be using overpriced Monster cabling and taking out an overpriced warranty that they didn't need...

 

[Bald Rick]

Thameslink trains are running through but no terminators at Luton at the moment.

Does anyone know what has actually been done to solve the problem, is it plugging in a new controlling module? (Texting from complete ignorance)

The work done last night was to test the replaced TDM (time division multiplex) system. This is the system that transmits the messages sent by the signalbox at West Hampstead to the remote interlocking at Luton, and vice versa. Essentially a 70s vintage telecomms system. There were well over 100 seperate functions to test, and it has to be done 'wheels free' ie with no trains in the area concerned.

 

[Bedpan]

I see journeycheck is listing a longer list of buses accepting tickets.
Though it isn't stricly accurate - Metroline withdrew route 714 (luton airport-St albans-New Barnet) back in the Summer. It has now been replaced by an extension of route 84 once per hour which runs as usual via Potters Bar.

Well, this is a great help to travellers to and from Luton and Harpenden...NOT.

The only bus we have on the list is 84A, and the easement on that route only applies as far north as St Albans! No mention at all of 321 (Watford Junc - St Albans Abbey - Harpenden - Luton), 610 (Cockfosters - Hatfield - Harpenden - Luton, 366 or 636 (Hatfield/Welwyn GC area to Harpenden and Luton, which would be useful - particularly the 321 since this runs every 20 mins during the day and as far as I am a are this is the only one with an evening service, albeit infrequent. There again there is a danger of that buses would be swamped if they were advertised as alternative routes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Quote:
Alternative Routes
-
Replacement buses are operating as below to link to Great Northern routes until 23:00.
between Bedford and St Neots
between Luton and Hitchin
between St Albans and Hatfield
-
The following local bus services are accepting Thameslink ticket holders:
ARRIVA bus route 300, 301 and 724 between St Albans and Hatfield where Great Northern services run to London Kings Cross.
METROLINE buses 84, 84A between St Albans and Potters Bar where Great Northern services run to London Kings Cross.
METROLINE bus 714 between St Albans/Luton and New Barnet where Great Northern services run to London Kings Cross.
UNO buses route 602 St Albans/Radlett to Hatfield, 653 St Albans to Hatfield where Great Northern services run to London Kings Cross.
UNO bus 602 between St Albans/Radlett and Watford High Street where London Overground services run to London Euston.
UNO bus 615 between Elstree & Borehamwood and Stanmore where the Jubilee line runs.
UNO bus 655 between St Albans, Radlett and Esltree & Borehamwood.
Greenline route 757 services between Victoria and Luton.

 

[Signal Head]

The work done last night was to test the replaced TDM (time division multiplex) system. This is the system that transmits the messages sent by the signalbox at West Hampstead to the remote interlocking at Luton, and vice versa. Essentially a 70s vintage telecomms system. There were well over 100 seperate functions to test, and it has to be done 'wheels free' ie with no trains in the area concerned.

And they tell us Override systems aren't required any more because "TDM doesn't fail". :roll:

 

[yorksrob]

I wonder whether Bedford - Sandy would have proved useful in this instance.

 

[Flying_Turtle]

And they tell us Override systems aren't required any more because "TDM doesn't fail". :roll:

well... it doesn't... just fries!

 

[QueensCurve]

There is still flat crossings on Cambria Junction, just north of Loughborough Junction, Nunhead Junction, the diamond outside Lewisham, Courthill/Ladywell Junction (from Ladywell to London and Lewisham to Hither Green) and of course the crossings that Thameslink propose to use to get from London Bridge towards Deptford plus North Kent (i think?) junction itself.

And that's just SET land up to Lewisham.

NR had an opportunity to untangle literally everything on the way up to London Bridge and Blackfriars but instead narrowed that focus down to from Brighton up to London Bridge instead. What we'll have in 2018 is the major bottleneck (or the label of it) simply moving further out to a new location.

There will still be a flat junction just south of Blackfriars. That would appear to be the weakness in the whole scheme.

 

[Class377/5]

There will still be a flat junction just south of Blackfriars. That would appear to be the weakness in the whole scheme.

You mean the 5 track wide section with a bi-di 12 car loop is the weakest bit? Because in 2018 that's what south of Blackfriars will be.

 

[edwin_m]

You mean the 5 track wide section with a bi-di 12 car loop is the weakest bit? Because in 2018 that's what south of Blackfriars will be.

If it's a problem they could go back to the original service proposal where the Wimbledon/Sutton trains terminate in the bays at Blackfriars. After an expensive re-building to move the bays to the west side of the through lines, this was over-ridden because the local MP objected.

 

[Class377/5]

If it's a problem they could go back to the original service proposal where the Wimbledon/Sutton trains terminate in the bays at Blackfriars. After an expensive re-building to move the bays to the west side of the through lines, this was over-ridden because the local MP objected.

No it was overrides as that's what the local people campaign for.

Note that the services via Herne Hill can cross at Loughborough Junction or north of Elephant meaning the conflict that people keep making a huge fuss of doesn't rally exist.

Worthing noting this critical mix is already happening with every Thameslink train without issue today with more Thameslink services crossing. Fail to see how less trains will be worse off.

Especially when the rolling stock will all be more modern and quicker off the mark so have even less issues!

 

[70014IronDuke]

I wonder whether Bedford - Sandy would have proved useful in this instance.

It depends what you mean. If you mean the service prior to closure - it would hardly count. It was a roughly two-hour service, and i think the last train left Cambridge at about 18.00, so Sandy at about 18.30. you could probably have acommodated 200? folk on that train.

But a modern-day service, one train per hour? It would be something, i suppose.

Of course, in BR days, I'm sure they would have - as a MINIMUM -coupled up a Cl 24 with three Mk 1s and run an extra shuttle Bletchley - Bedford St John's service way into the evening. (Or up to about 1965, it would probably have been a 2-6-4T.)

You might think that it would be worth having some kind of emergency back up locos and stock at Bletchley for exactly this today, given the amount of blockages on both the WCML and Midland. Of course, these days you'd need to top and tail, but I wonder how much it would cost to keep a Cl 31 + 4 Mk 2s + Cl 31 on hand? LM could even run them on, say every first Sunday of the month, non-stop (if the intermediate stations can't take them) between Bedford and Bletchley, just to keep crews au fait with the traction. it would attract a whole load of regular pax, along with enthusiasts.

Certainly better than having thousands of passengers stuck at St Albans, Hitchin or even Euston or St Pancras and not being able to travel north with any certainty of getting home by train.

 

[edwin_m]

No it was overrides as that's what the local people campaign for.

Note that the services via Herne Hill can cross at Loughborough Junction or north of Elephant meaning the conflict that people keep making a huge fuss of doesn't rally exist.

Worthing noting this critical mix is already happening with every Thameslink train without issue today with more Thameslink services crossing. Fail to see how less trains will be worse off.

Especially when the rolling stock will all be more modern and quicker off the mark so have even less issues!

At present there are fewer trains in total and none via London Bridge so this situation doesn't arise.

The future 24TPH via the Thameslink core uses the two through platforms at Blackfriars but by Blackfriars Junction those routed via Elephant need to split off on the flat from those routed via London Bridge. To my mind that is the most severe conflict on Thameslink, as at the north end the 24TPH will be split up by the grade-separated underground junction north of St Pancras.

The original plan was to have the trains via Elephant terminating in the bays at Blackfriars with easy onward connections. However that is no longer happening, and if that had been known at the time the bays could have been left on the east side to reduce remodelling cost, or perhaps put between the through lines.

 

[yorksrob]

It depends what you mean. If you mean the service prior to closure - it would hardly count. It was a roughly two-hour service, and i think the last train left Cambridge at about 18.00, so Sandy at about 18.30. you could probably have acommodated 200? folk on that train.

But a modern-day service, one train per hour? It would be something, i suppose.

Of course, in BR days, I'm sure they would have - as a MINIMUM -coupled up a Cl 24 with three Mk 1s and run an extra shuttle Bletchley - Bedford St John's service way into the evening. (Or up to about 1965, it would probably have been a 2-6-4T.)

You might think that it would be worth having some kind of emergency back up locos and stock at Bletchley for exactly this today, given the amount of blockages on both the WCML and Midland. Of course, these days you'd need to top and tail, but I wonder how much it would cost to keep a Cl 31 + 4 Mk 2s + Cl 31 on hand? LM could even run them on, say every first Sunday of the month, non-stop (if the intermediate stations can't take them) between Bedford and Bletchley, just to keep crews au fait with the traction. it would attract a whole load of regular pax, along with enthusiasts.

Certainly better than having thousands of passengers stuck at St Albans, Hitchin or even Euston or St Pancras and not being able to travel north with any certainty of getting home by train.

I was thinking more in terms of, if it had survived into a current regional cross country route, would there have been scope for the HST's to have used it in the way that they sometimes do from the ECML via Lincoln. Of course, the old route had a north facing curve at Sandy, so the MML may also have become a diversionary route for the ECML towards London !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Of course, with EW rail and bi-modes, this may become a possibility in future.

 

[causton]

You might think that it would be worth having some kind of emergency back up locos and stock at Bletchley for exactly this today, given the amount of blockages on both the WCML and Midland. Of course, these days you'd need to top and tail, but I wonder how much it would cost to keep a Cl 31 + 4 Mk 2s + Cl 31 on hand? LM could even run them on, say every first Sunday of the month, non-stop (if the intermediate stations can't take them) between Bedford and Bletchley, just to keep crews au fait with the traction. it would attract a whole load of regular pax, along with enthusiasts.

Certainly better than having thousands of passengers stuck at St Albans, Hitchin or even Euston or St Pancras and not being able to travel north with any certainty of getting home by train.

The problem here is that 'thousands of passengers' will in no way be able to use a single 4 car set.

Even if (someone?) stumped up the money for it, the Marston Vale doesn't run on Sundays anyway but more seriously - if you advertise DO NOT TRAVEL, as they will in a situation like this, people will find other routes. If you advertise you are running any service at all everyone will come for it, and be disappointed to find it is a single 4-car loco hauled set which will run whenever the one set of traincrew ready to work it book on at 11am...

 

[ChiefPlanner]

In my day , as Operations Manager , North London Railways , I assisted Thameslink several times by either running later shuttles on the Abbey Line and on occasion some 4 car non stop DMU's Bedford to Bletchley .....

This was , of course, the deeply inefficient and non customer focused British Rail.

 

[jon0844]

I can't see us ever having spare trains, and that's before you consider how they could move about, driving signing, route knowledge etc.

But I do think there could be scope for the RDG/ATOC, DfT and other agencies to consider funding coaches for emergency use that could be utilised pretty quickly for when serious incidents occur. Of course they'd need to be maintained and drivers would need to be on call, but the fleet would either end up low mileage for future use, or be used a lot more than expected - in which case they'd be proven worthwhile.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I was thinking more in terms of, if it had survived into a current regional cross country route, would there have been scope for the HST's to have used it in the way that they sometimes do from the ECML via Lincoln. Of course, the old route had a north facing curve at Sandy, so the MML may also have become a diversionary route for the ECML towards London !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Of course, with EW rail and bi-modes, this may become a possibility in future.

If the Bedford - Cambridge line had survived another 18 months, I believe the service would have been included under the subsidy scheme brought in by the Labour govt. but I think track geometry at Bedford - even if it had been redesigned in the 1980s to route trains into Midland Rd - would have precluded the use of diverting ECML trains on or off the Midland. I get the feeling that BR(E) never really ever thought about the line - at least not the GN people. (I bet the thought about using the LNW platforms though, and fourtracking through Sandy!)
AFAIK, the north-west curve at Sandy was only put in during WW2 and was decommissioned c 1960 - remember, this was a time when folks at Marylebone were still planning to use the route to divert freight around London, and Bletchley flyover was still being built to that end ! (Bizarre? you bet!)

EDIt - of course, it has just struck me why GN management would never think of using the north-west curve at Sandy: they had a ready made diversion route already - ie via March and Cambridge - all within their own territory, no need for reversals and with trains even terminating at Kings Cross. And even if the GN was blocked completely between Hitchen and Stevenage, they could always divert passengers to Liverpool Street. No brainer, really.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The problem here is that 'thousands of passengers' will in no way be able to use a single 4 car set.

Well, I agree, of course - but they did, sort of, advertise the current service - and an additional relief four carriage, non-stop relief train would be a vast improvement on the current 150 unit (or whatever it is). Of course, my suggestion would be meant for Bedford pax, not the entire MML (or Bletchley/MK pax if the blockage were on the WCML).

Even if (someone?) stumped up the money for it, the Marston Vale doesn't run on Sundays anyway

I know - I was trying to find a use for my imaginary set that would help pay for at least the traction knowledge.

but more seriously - if you advertise DO NOT TRAVEL, as they will in a situation like this, people will find other routes. If you advertise you are running any service at all everyone will come for it, and be disappointed to find it is a single 4-car loco hauled set which will run whenever the one set of traincrew ready to work it book on at 11am...

As I wrote - they did note that trains exist on the Bletchley-Bedford line - albeit they also stated it was a very limited service.
But yes, you would really need to suspend the local service and run three x non-stop Bletchley-Bedford trains an hour to even come near providing a barely adequate service, i suppose.

For sure, once (assuming it happens) there is an hourly Marylebone-Aylesbury - MK service, that will surely provide some cover for the WCML being blocked south of Bletchley.

 

[Minstral25]

Stop the Horsham, although I did suggest doing the Finsbury Park to Three Bridges that means no reduction in services at all.

However in massive disruption like this week, some extra stops would be in place. As for Redhill seeing a 50% reduction, well that's just Thameslink not all services through there. Add in the fact you'll have longer trains meaning an increase in capacity and it's all round better than today's situation which is my entire point here.

Yes but in 2018 the majority of services will be Thameslink at Redhill. The services at Redhill are weak already for the passenger flows and whilst 12 coach trains against 8 coaches will be better overcrowding will be a problem, not only in peak but also off-peak.

However why not run the Bedford to Three bridges to City Thameslink or London Bridge.

 

[A0]

In my day , as Operations Manager , North London Railways , I assisted Thameslink several times by either running later shuttles on the Abbey Line and on occasion some 4 car non stop DMU's Bedford to Bletchley .....

This was , of course, the deeply inefficient and non customer focused British Rail.

I assume this was back in the day when Bletchley had a depot which serviced DMUs though?

Nowadays the Marston Vale is a diesel 'island' and other diesel branches eg Abbey Line, Goblin have / are being electrified. Perhaps when the Marston Vale is wired such flexibilty will return, but currently further DMUs would have to be sent from Tyseley or somewhere in tge London area which isn't really practical - add in the traction knowledge limitations - presumably the Marston Vale drivers are only cleared for 150s and 153s ? - and you can see why it's not practical now.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I assume this was back in the day when Bletchley had a depot which serviced DMUs though?

Nowadays the Marston Vale is a diesel 'island' and other diesel branches eg Abbey Line, Goblin have / are being electrified. Perhaps when the Marston Vale is wired such flexibilty will return, but currently further DMUs would have to be sent from Tyseley or somewhere in tge London area which isn't really practical - add in the traction knowledge limitations - presumably the Marston Vale drivers are only cleared for 150s and 153s ? - and you can see why it's not practical now.

It was - and there were a couple of sets on the TMD , fuelled and OK to go - spare driver and guard found so of they went....the only issue was that the branch signalmen were not used to non stop trains , so a bellcode for a non stop was a wake up....anyway , they did the job well enough for a couple of trips and moved a couple of thousand people. (or kept them moving anyhow) - no contracts in those days , just common sense railway work....

 

[Class377/5]

Yes but in 2018 the majority of services will be Thameslink at Redhill. The services at Redhill are weak already for the passenger flows and whilst 12 coach trains against 8 coaches will be better overcrowding will be a problem, not only in peak but also off-peak.

However why not run the Bedford to Three bridges to City Thameslink or London Bridge.

How do you suggest terminating at City with 45 second dwell times or London Bridge with 90 seconds dwell time? I'm not aware of station staff being able to remove all passengers that quickly.

Also there is the point of being unable to terminate units there so both locations will need to run to elsewhere (Finsbury, Hornsey or Cricklewood in this example so why not run them in service than try to make them destroy the timetable by terminating at the worst possible locations!

 

[yorksrob]

I can't see us ever having spare trains, and that's before you consider how they could move about, driving signing, route knowledge etc.

But I do think there could be scope for the RDG/ATOC, DfT and other agencies to consider funding coaches for emergency use that could be utilised pretty quickly for when serious incidents occur. Of course they'd need to be maintained and drivers would need to be on call, but the fleet would either end up low mileage for future use, or be used a lot more than expected - in which case they'd be proven worthwhile.

Wouldn't a better option be to use the mainline trains that couldn't continue South via the mainline ? Yes, the routes might need to be cleared, but you only have to do that once.

 

[Class377/5]

At present there are fewer trains in total and none via London Bridge so this situation doesn't arise.

The future 24TPH via the Thameslink core uses the two through platforms at Blackfriars but by Blackfriars Junction those routed via Elephant need to split off on the flat from those routed via London Bridge. To my mind that is the most severe conflict on Thameslink, as at the north end the 24TPH will be split up by the grade-separated underground junction north of St Pancras.

The original plan was to have the trains via Elephant terminating in the bays at Blackfriars with easy onward connections. However that is no longer happening, and if that had been known at the time the bays could have been left on the east side to reduce remodelling cost, or perhaps put between the through lines.

Your confusing what I say with what you think. The current situation at Loughborough Junction sees the 15tph mix with the Southeastern. Now this means you have more trains mixing today with the need to cross each other than in 2018.

Your also assuming all 24tph per hour will cross, they won't. What you have is 16tph on the from London Bridge needing to cross the 8tph to Elephant.

Again the junction you are making out is the most restrictive will be a five track the with up trains fro Elephant having two lines and London Bridge trains having two trains in BOTH directions with a 12 bi di loop. In the middle. That's not what I'd call restrictive.

Note as well this junction is set to be ATO so the margins between trains required will far far longer than now with stock with better capabilities. It's adding these two things with more infrastructure means you get the extra 9tph from today in total.

Also there has NEVER been a plan to terminate all trains from Elephant in the bays. Think your confused on that point as the max every proposed on Thameslink was 18tph to/from London Bridge.

As for if it was known, er Network Rail (or rather Railtrack along with BR) and looked at various options all the while knowing the service pattern will never be fixed forever (it's worth noting that Thameslink has never had a completely stable service pattern throughout its life other than direct Bedford to Bridge trains). Please the idea for the bays to be on the west is more to do ith the focus of through trains being towards London Bridge with bay platforms used by services from Elephant (ie Southeastern).

 

[jon0844]

Wouldn't a better option be to use the mainline trains that couldn't continue South via the mainline ? Yes, the routes might need to be cleared, but you only have to do that once.

You can come up with emergency plans for any given route, but a fleet of coaches at strategic locations around the UK are far more flexible and won't just be used for rail issues.

Obviously there ARE lots of old buses wheeled out for special events and when things go wrong, but often these can't be mobilised as quickly.

It would mean subsidising their upkeep in the hope that they're not used much. Something I know wouldn't be popular (they'd be considered a waste of money right up to the time they were used to shift large numbers of people around).

I rather suspect they'd actually find themselves being used quite a lot, and the advantage of buses/coaches is they can pretty much go anywhere and be driven by anyone (suitably qualified).

 

[Minstral25]

How do you suggest terminating at City with 45 second dwell times or London Bridge with 90 seconds dwell time? I'm not aware of station staff being able to remove all passengers that quickly.

Also there is the point of being unable to terminate units there so both locations will need to run to elsewhere (Finsbury, Hornsey or Cricklewood in this example so why not run them in service than try to make them destroy the timetable by terminating at the worst possible locations!

Obviously I am just a passenger assuming the railway has decent contingency plans to ensure my service remains when the wires go down up north. I have no idea what the plan would be - maybe Finsbury Park or Cricklewood would be better.

However back to the original point, you are saying that plan A is to cut out 50% of our services through London Bridge completely, which would lead to extensive overcrowding as it does every time a train is cut now.

There is no extra capacity going to the Redhill Line in the peak in the new 2018 timetable (in fact in certain periods seating capacity will see serious cuts - although standing space goes up) so it will be the worse possible line to cut capacity in this instance.